Smith had had a great year, again. His 3 hundreds in India where he topped the averages and runs scored suggests that he has more to offer than just being a flat track bully.

The fact that he is making runs when those around him are not even getting close to what he is doing suggests that he is the best batsman on display. I think he will continue to struggle when their is movement in the air, but which batsman does not have faults. Joe Root seems in cable of scoring big on batsman friendly pitches.

All batsmans averages in the modern age are inflated due to the number of bland pitches going around at present. Should we be having a go at batsman because of this?

yuppie wrote:All batsmans averages in the modern age are inflated due to the number of bland pitches going around at present. Should we be having a go at batsman because of this?

Is this necessarily true at the moment? I'd have to guess average scores for most teams are down on what they were 10 years ago.

India lost their best ever batting line up, England and south Africa are much worse statistically. Sri Lanka have lost two excellent batters without replacing. Windies line up no longer has talents like lara, chanderpaul and sarwan.....

Watching bouncers taken at ankle height by keepers in Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne is pretty embarrassing. Granted, threw results, but England have a terrible batting line up, their worst in a long time, and they've played like we expect.

If this was nowadays Aussie's v England 2010, we'd probably be at 0-0 with all to play

You say people aren't making the most of it, but I don't necessarily agree with that at all.

Handscomb averages 55 at home, yet he had half a season in Bristol without a 100, and averages 30 odd for Yorkshire last year. Bancroft had a season with glocs in 2016 and was 5th on their batting average list.

Are these test match standard batsman playing in these series? Cook was considered finished by many, stoneman has a first class average not much past 30, Vince came into this series with a test bat average below 20 from a whole summer vs lower tier sides, malan has a fc average under 40, bairstow hadn't scored a test hundred in 20 matches.....

Not really a good indication that sub par players aren't thriving generally. These are two very historically weak line ups.

Marsh averages nothing and scored a huge hundred. Warner has a poor average away from home and probably wouldn't be in the team is he didn't feast on these pitches. Bancroft couldn't stand out at a poor division 2 county side, handscomb batted very poorly at the best of English county sides. Khawaja looks like a walking wicket when facing all but the most tame bowling.

I'd say the fact Australia field this side and can function has a lot to do with technique being covered up by utterly tame pitches.

Smith's performances relative to his historical peers are clearly unbelievably influenced by the fact he is batting on terrible pitched most of the time. Now, he's clearly better than anyone else on most surfaces, and his consistency is amazing.

He's clearly a very good player, but one who's bat average is still 10-15 runs higher than it should be had he played 10 years ago.

A good indication, the pitches v south Africa were far better than this, and Smith top scored in three matches with a 54.

He's clearly a player who is completely different when the ball moves in the air or seams/bounces. But Australia seem content to never produce a pitch that challenges this, so he'll probably go on batting huge numbers on roads, it helps his cause. Australia probably learnt after south Africa got into him, never produce result wickets again.

sussexpob wrote:He's clearly a very good player, but one who's bat average is still 10-15 runs higher than it should be had he played 10 years ago.

Maybe but not definitely. Pitches around the world were flatter ten years ago. Not in Australia, but in India, where Smith was superb, it's far harder to bat than it was. Scores in general are down on the noughties.

sussexpob wrote:A good indication, the pitches v south Africa were far better than this, and Smith top scored in three matches with a 54.

He's clearly a player who is completely different when the ball moves in the air or seams/bounces. But Australia seem content to never produce a pitch that challenges this, so he'll probably go on batting huge numbers on roads, it helps his cause. Australia probably learnt after south Africa got into him, never produce result wickets again.

I have no intentions to change the opinions of a heavily prejudiced person like you but for some context :

First innings at Perth - Duck, out to a spinner.Second innings at Perth - Out for 34

First innings at Hobart - 48 not out of a team total of 85. Left stranded despite looking extremely comfortable on a green top.Second innings at Hobart - 31 (was the eighth man dismissed batting with the tail).

First innings at Adelaide - Run Out for 59Second innings at Adelaide - Out for 40 while trying to finish off the game with 5 runs needed.

Sure, he doesn't score big hundreds on green tops but these scores are not those of a guy who is a walking wicket against it. Still averaged over 40 in that series (Would've been 50 had he not got out with victory all but sealed at Adelaide). He averaged 67 against Steyn, Morkel and Philander in SA in 2014. Averages over 130 in NZ. And I haven't even mentioned his performances in India. Has 13 hundreds at home as against 10 away. Has a near equal split of his near 6000 runs with 3000 at home and 2900 away. Yep, clearly a flat track bully.

Cricket Quiz Season 1 Winner

"If Australia avoid playing big teams at Chennai and Delhi, we have a great chance to win the World T20. Only missing trophy from the cabinet" Shanky Dundee, on twitter.

I think the feeling going around is that Smith is no longer being judged against his contemporaries but the legends. That stat actually does him no favours because it shows him close in the pack with his contemporaries. Although it's a good stat if people are arguing that he's not one of the best players of his time, which presumably no one is.